A Curb Cut on Landmarked St. Marks Avenue? Really?
See this beautiful brownstone front yard at 97 St. Marks Avenue? Better enjoy it while you can, because the owner is getting ready to demolish it to create a driveway and garage despite the recent landmarking of Prospect Heights, according to a tipster and DOB filings. How could this happen? We’re not quite sure, but…
See this beautiful brownstone front yard at 97 St. Marks Avenue? Better enjoy it while you can, because the owner is getting ready to demolish it to create a driveway and garage despite the recent landmarking of Prospect Heights, according to a tipster and DOB filings. How could this happen? We’re not quite sure, but here’s the initial permit where it mentions converting a portion of the ground floor into a garage and here’s an amendment for the curb cut. The whole thing is eerily reminiscent of what happened at 174 Clinton Avenue a couple of years ago. The icing on the cake, according to a Forum post yesterday, is that the owner’s kicking out the old lady who sold him the house but continued to live in the garden apartment in order to do it. We’ll get back to you with what Landmarks has to say. Let’s hope this is all a big misunderstanding! Update: LPC confirms that they have no record of any applications for Landmark approval at this address. GMAP
ok, so to recap:
1. this may violate general zoning laws that do not allow curb cuts for rowhouses less than 40 feet wide; and
2. this likely violates landmarking restrictions since prospect heights was calendared for landmarking in july 2008, before any dob application to perform this work was filed.
Section 25-633 of the Zoning law states:
Prohibition of curb cuts in certain districts
R4B R5B R6B R7B R8B
In the districts indicated, curb cuts are prohibited for
residential developments on zoning lots having a width of less than 40 feet along a street and existing on the effective date of establishing such district on the zoning maps.
This block of St. Mark’s Avenue is entirely R6B I believe.
As DIBS says, it would be a sin. Does anyone know what are the legal remedies that neighbors can take if DOB improperly issued the permit? Do you have to file something administratively with DOB, or do you need to (or should) file an Article 78 type proceeding in state court?
Colonel, the only filing I see for a curb cut is the one on 7/23/09. All other filings are for interior work with one exception for a rear porch.
I’m confused, so when did this block get landmarked?
If the proposal is allowed, the irony for this “best preserved example” . . . http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/sig/prospect_heights_Sig.pdf
Curb cuts are not legal in the R6B zoning district for lots under 40′ wide. This has been the case since contextual zoning rules were adopted in the late 1980’s. The permit should not have been issued without going through the Board of Standards and Appeals. Seems like a simple matter of complying with the law.
Posted by: architect66 at September 23, 2009 10:53 AM
Can anyone else confirm this??? If so it is illegal.
Textpert, the original plan was filed before PH landmarking was even calendered. Additionally, the curb cut was approved on 9/21, the same day that the curb cut was approved.
Why would the homeowner need LPC approval for something they didn’t have jurisdiction over until the 9/21?
Sorry to offend. When you make yourself public (ie. Facebook), you make yourself public. Not sure what I did was any worse than a blog posting all information regarding the permits which lists the home owner’s name.
I googled the owner more out of curiosity about the decorative artist component, but facebook was all I found…
Anyway, the curb cut is a terrible thing….
I tend to agree with jester and wasder on this one.
There are two issues: 1) is the proposal allowed under LPC / DOB regulations and 2) if so is it right for people to ‘go after’ the owner on the web in order to humiliate her into dropping them.
If the plans are not allowable, that’s the end of the story – nothing to debate. If they are, then the focus should probably be on improving the regulations so that this does not happen in future.
Has the tipster tried talking to the owner? For what it’s worth, the proposals sound hideous and it would be a real shame if they go ahead. But I think the privacy of individual owners is a more important issue.
“I don’t know how they got around that?”
Kudos to them I say! The update makes me question the facts, but originally saw this as a skilled maneuvering of a homeowner’s interests through a maze of bureacracy. She bought in a landmarked home people, I doubt she’s going to go too garish. There is a lovely home with a garage on Sterling Pl and 6th – garages are not always bad.
Owner, if you’re reading this, forget us. We are idiots.